« PreviousContinue »
LIST OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISERS.
"The following list includes all who accepted the invitation to become members of the
Revision Committee, and at any time took part in the work.”
I. ENGLISH REVISION COMMITTEE. - (1) OLD TESTAMENT COMPANY. Right Rev. EDWARD HAROLD BROWNE, D.D. (Chair. | Rev. ANDREW BRUCE DAVIDSON, D.D. man). (Born 1811.)
Rev. GEORGE DOUGLAS, D.D.
SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, Esq.
Rev. CHRISTIAN D. GINSBURG, LL.D.
Rev. FREDERICK WILLIAM Gorch, D.D. Rev. PATRICK FAIRBAIRN, D.D. (Born 1805.)
Rev. WILLIAM KAY, D.D.
Rev. William ROBERTSON SMITH, LL.D.
Right Rev. ConnoP THIRLWALL, D.D. (Born 1797 ; Very Rev. JOHN JAMES STEWART PEROWNE, D.D. died July 27, 187 (Born 1823.)
Rev. John JebB. (Born 1805; resigned 1870.) THOMAS CHENERY, Esq. (Born 1826.)
Rev. William SELWYN, D.D. (Born 1806; died Rev. STANLEY LEATHES, D.D. (Born 1830.)
April 24, 1875.) WILLIAM WRIGHT, LL.D. (Born 1830.)
Right Rev. CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH, D.D. (Born Rev. ARCHIBALD HENRY SAYСE. (Born 1846.)
1807 ; resigned 1870.) Ven. BENJAMIN HARRISON, M.A.
Rev. BENJAMIN Davies, D.D. (B. 1814; d. July 19, 1875.) ROBERT L. BENSLEY, Esq.
Very Rev. EDWARD HAYES PLUMPTRE, D.D.“ (Born Rev. JOHN BIRRELL.
1821; resigned March 17, 1874.) FRANK CHANCE, Esq., M.D.
Rev. DUNCAN HARKNESS WEIR, D.D. (Born 1822 ; Rev. THOMAS KELLY CHEYNE.
died Nov. 24, 1876.)
(37 REVISERS.) ENGLISH REVISION COMMITTEE. - (2) NEW TESTAMENT COMPANY. Right Rev. CHARLES JOHN ELLICOTT, D.D. (Chair. Rev. Brooke Foss WESTCOTT, D.D. (Born 1825.) man). (Born 1819.)
Right Rev. Joseph BARBER LIGHTFOOT, D.D., LL.D. Rev. JOHN TROUTBECK (Secretary).
(Born 1828.) Right Rev. George MOBERLY, D.C.L. (Born 1803.) Rev. FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT, D.D. (Born 1828.) Rev. BENJAMIN HALL Kennedy, D.D. (Born 1804.) Rev. William FIDDIAN MOULTON, D.D. (Born 1835.) Right Rev. CHARLES WORDSWORTH, D.C.L. (Born 1806.) | Rev. DaviD BROWN, D.D. Most Rev. RICHARD CHENBVIX TRENCH, D.D. (Born Rev. William Milligan, D.D. 1807 : died 1886.)
Rev. SAMUEL NEWTH, D.D.
Right Rev. Samuel WILBERFORCE, D.D. (Born 1805 ;
Very Rev. CHARLES MerivaLE, D.D. (Born 1808; Very Rev. ARTHUR PENRHYN STANLEY, D.D. (Born resigned 1873.) 1815; died July 18, 1881.)
Rev. JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D. (Born 1810; died Ven. WILLIAM LEE, D.D. (Born 1815.)
Jan. 3, 1876.) Rev. William Gibson HUMPHRY, B.D. (Born 1815.) Mr. SAMUEL PRIDEAUX TREGELLES, LL.D. ("Prevented Very Rev. CHARLES VAUGHAN, D.D. (Born 1816.)
by ill health from attending.” B.1813; d. Ap. 24, 1875.) Ven. Edwin PALMER, D.D. (Born 1824.)
Very Rev. HENRY ALFORD, D.D. (Born 1810; died Very Rev. Edw'D HENRY BICKERSTETH, D.D. (B. 1825.) Jan. 12, 1871.)
II. AMERICAN REVISION COMMITTEE. - (1) OLD TESTAMENT COMPANY. Rev. William HENRY GREEN, D.D., LL.D. (Chair- | JAMES STRONG, S.T.D., LL.D. (Born 1822.) man). (Born 1825.)
Rev. CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH, D.D., LL.D. Rev. George E. DAY, D.D. (Secretary). (Born 1815.) (Born 1823 ; died Jan. 2, 1883.). Rev. THOMAS JEFFERSON CONANT, D.D. (Born 1802.) Rev. CHARLES A. AIKEN, D.D. (Born 1827.) Rev. GEORGE ÉMLEN HARF, D.D, LL.D. (Born 1805.) Rev. Howard Osgood, D.D., LL.D. (Born 1831.) Rev. Joseph PACKARD, D.D. (Born 1812.)
Rev. Charles MARSH MEAD, D.D. (Born 1836.) Rev. CORNELIUS V. A. Van Dyck, D.D., M.D. (B. 1818.) | TAYLER Lewis, LL.D. (Born 1802 ; died May 11, 1877.) Rev. Talbot W. CHAMBERS, D.D. (Born 1819.) Rev. Calvin Ellis Srowe, D.D. (Born 1802; resigned Rev. John De WITT, D.D. (Born 1821.)
(15 REVISERS.) AMERICAN REVISION COMMITTEE. — (2) NEW TESTAMENT COMPANY. Rev. Philip SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D. (Born Jan. 1, 1819.) Ezra ABBOT, D.D., LL.D. (B. 1819; d. Mar. 21, 1884.) Rev. THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, D.D., LL.D. (Chairman). Rev. Horatio Balch HACKETT, D.D., LL.D. (Born (Born 1801.)
1808; died Nov. 2, 1875.) Rev. J. HENRY Thayer, D.D. (Secretary). (Born 1828.) Rev. Charles Hodge, D.D., LL D. (“Never attended Right Rev. ALFRED LEE, D.D., LL.D. (Born 1807.) the meetings, but corresponded with the Committee." Rev. ASAHEL CLARK KENDRICK, D.D., LL.D. (Born Born 1797; died June 19, 1878.) 1809.)
Rev. HENRY BOYNTON SMITH, D.D., LL.D. (“AtRev. Edward Abiel WASHBURN, D.D., LL.D. (Born tended one session, and resigned from ill health." 1819 : died Feb. 2, 1881.)
Born 1815; died Feb. 7, 1877.) CHARLES SHORT, LL.D. (Born 1821.)
JAMES HADLEY, LL.D. (Born 1821; d. Nov. 14, 1872.) Rev. J. K. BURR, D.D. (Born 1825; died April 24, 1882.), Rev. William FAIRFIELD WARREN, D.D. (“Accepted Rev. Howard Crosby, D.D., LL.D. (Born 1826.)
the original appointment, but found it impossible to THOMAS CHASE, LL.D. (Born 1827.)
attend, and resigned." Rev. TIMOTHY DWIGHT, D.D. (Born 1828.)
Rev. George R. Crooks, D.D. (Accepted the origiRev. MATTHEW B. RIDDLE, D.D. (Born 1836.)
nal appointment, but found it impossible to attend, and resigned.” Born 1822.)
BEING THE VERSION SET FORTH A.D. 1611 COMPARED WITH THE MOST ANCIENT AUTHORITIES, AND REVISED.
THE REVISION OF 1881 AND 1885 COMPARED WITH THE VERSION OF 1611:
SHOWING AT A GLANCE WHAT WORDS ARE COMMON TO BOTH,
AND BY DIACRITICAL MARKS AND FOOT-NOTES
WHAT ARE PECULIAR TO EACH.
By RUFUS WENDELL,
IRA BRADLEY AND COMPANY.
The completion and publication of the Revised Version of our English Bible have imposed upon its readers an obligation which does not exist in relation to any other book. This obligation is not only unique, it is also comprehensive and difficult. Of a history, commentary, lexicon, law treatise, or text-book, the latest edition, if it be a revised one, is by general consent preferred. Even though the original work be marked by excellences of a high order, its revised form, without detailed examination of any sort, is assumed to be an improvement. And the assumption is commonly correct.
The Revised Version of the Bible may be fairly entitled to a like prepossession in the popular mind. The many years and the eminent and reverent scholarship devoted to it might easily seem to point decisively in that direction. Nevertheless,
it should not, by being adopted as a matter of course, receive the same treatment. | It is certain, moreover, that it will not. The Version of 1611 is endeared to millions
by the traditions of over two and a half centuries; and if it shall ultimately be superseded by the Revision of 1881 and 1885, it will be because the superiority of the latter is generally conceded. The final verdict of the mass of intelligent readers will doubtless be that which shall have been reached by the great body of competent Biblical scholars; but it will be a judgment based as well upon some adequate knowledge of the peculiarities of each Version as distinguished from the other. Whatever, therefore, puts that knowledge within easy reach of all classes must be regarded as a public benefaction.
With the Revised Version before him, the problems that first confront the interested reader are these : What words of the Common Version have the Revisers approved and retained? what words have they introduced ? what words have they excluded? A further leading inquiry would relate to the merits of the Revisional changes. But the what must precede the why; and the question forces itself, How is the student of the Revised Scriptures, without special help, to ascertain what is unchanged, what introduced, and what excluded ?
There seems to be but one answer. The desired information must be acquired by a word-for-word Comparison of the Revised with the Common Version. The 31,088 verses of the former must each be examined side by side with the same verse of the latter. Otherwise stated, the 792,444 words composing the Revised text must be compared with about the same number in the Version of 1611; and this attention to over fifteen hundred thousand words (the total of both texts) will be necessary in order that the alterations represented by the Revised text may be learned once.
Out of ten thousand Bible readers, could one be supposed willing seriously to undertake a work of such magnitude, it would still be pertinent to inquire what, in the way of real advantage, would be its probable outcome. And the candid answer would have to be, Almost nothing at all. The long and toilsome comparison, even if executed upon a properly matured plan, would so consume the available mental energy as virtually to leave none for weighing the changes made by the Revisers. Nor is this all. Unless the supposed labor were greatly augmented by some systematic attempt to preserve its results where they would meet the eye at each return to the text, the comparison would usually have to be repeated whenever it was desired to know accurately wherein the two versions disagree. It must be obvious that a task so utterly disproportionate to the limited leisure alike of the professional and of the average student of the Divine Word would be despairingly abandoned before it was fairly grappled with. Ordinary Bible readers will accomplish little in attempting to find out for themselves the differences between the Old Version and the New. On any but the most insignificant scale, the work must either be done to their hand, or it will not be done at all.
Happily, the difficulties to which attention has been drawn are not insuperable. They were carefully considered by the Editor (whose deep interest in Bible revision, he will be pardoned for stating, began in the year 1850) as far back as 1879; and a plan for overcoming them, having reference to the then expected Revised New Testament, was published in prospectus form in January, 1880. Two years later he brought out, as the complete embodiment of his scheme, the “Student's Edition” of the Revised New Testament. The diacritical labor expended upon that volume was as fascinating as it was arduous. The work was received — by ministers, theological professors, intelligent laymen, and the religious and secular press — with warm and unqualified commendation.
It remains now to speak of the larger undertaking, of which the Student's Revised New Testament was the forerunner.
In the present volume the public have offered to them a Diacritical edition of the entire Revised Bible. The work was planned, and has been executed, with reference to an existing need, - one, it may be added, not of a transient character, — for which no other publication, on either side of the Atlantic, even attempts to provide. It may therefore claim, without presumption, to be the labor-saving edition of the Revised Bible. What its distinctive features should be, has been partially intimated already; what they actually are, will now be concisely set forth. Dealing with the text, we inquire,
I. WHAT WORDS OF THE VERSION OF 1611 HAVE THE REVISERS AP
AND RETAINED ?
There are, as already stated, in the text of the Revised Bible 792,444 words. Of that number, 721,672 are retained from the Version of 1611. In this Bible every one of these latter is left unmarked, and its character, as an unchanged word, is known at sight. By this means ninety-one per cent of the text is practically removed
from the field of comparison. The occasional exceptions to this claim are due to the fact that the sense of a passage is sometimes materially affected by a change in the order of retained words, or in the punctuation. The changed order referred to, whether important or unimportant, is uniformly indicated by a curve after the verse numeral. Changes in punctuation are disregarded.
1 The most striking dissimilarity of the “Student's Revised New Testament” to the present Diacritical edition consists in the fact, that in the former work the revisional alterations in the text are shown by a system of underlining. Where new renderings are based on changes in the critical Greek text of the original, the lines are doubled.
The Old Testament is reprinted from the Oxford small-pica octavo edition ; the New Testament (having been electrotyped before the Revised Old Testament appeared) follows the Oxford pica edition of 1881. In the English (Oxford and Cambridge) editions of the Revised Bible a typographical error occurs in Ezekiel xxxviii. 16, where " thee" is wrongly printed for "me" in the phrase "that the nations may know me.” The passage is correctly printed in this edition.